Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:21:26 -0800 From: Peter Losher <Peter_Losher@isc.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: spin lock panic in 5.2-REL Message-ID: <200401281821.26324.Peter_Losher@isc.org> In-Reply-To: <200401281243.10655.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040127082106.L14045@farside.isc.org> <200401271420.05240.Peter_Losher@isc.org> <200401281243.10655.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 09:43 am, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Yes, I was running a kernel for a short while w/ INVARIANTS and
> > WITNESS, but it was basically useless after a couple of hours under
> > load under the giant lock. How much of a performance hit is just
> > WITNESS?
>
> A lot. I think Robert Watson has seen as high a performance impact as
> 40%.
Oh joy - that's a non-starter... :(
And it just happened again:
- -=-
spin lock sched lock held by 0x8d2f7a00 for > 5 seconds
panic: spin lock held too long
cpuid = 4;
Debugger("panic")
Stopped at Debugger+0x55: xchgl %ebx,in_Debugger.0
db>
- -=-
If there is anything else I can provide that doesn't make the system slow
as molassess to help debug, I am all ears.
Best Wishes - Peter
- --
Peter_Losher@isc.org | ISC | OpenPGP Key E8048D08 | "The bits must flow"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFAGG4mPtVx9OgEjQgRAmvtAJ0effqPznHB65bWog9hfm8+WzzZIgCgxctn
++EFx1TJ+q63ErM6oFmy1O8=
=LapX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200401281821.26324.Peter_Losher>